Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Captain Adverse · Jun 30, 2013

FreedomFromAll said:
And you are asserting more than just a opinion?

Asserting that sexual orientation is a biological method of population control seems a bit of a stretch to me. From a evolutionary position I think that your case really falls flat. The glaring problem is that human population growth has not in the slightest regressed in the thousands of years that homosexuality has existed. And I must point out that homosexuality existed in small populations where there wasnt any damn need to control population growth.

In my lifetime I have known many homosexuals. Some assert that they were that way from birth, but some get offended when people say its not a choice. And there are arguments from in between like a friend of mine that says that he was straight but was bored with it.

It appears to me that you chose not to read the posts, or cherry picked through whatever you did read. You would have gotten answers to some of your comments before making them here.

In any case population control through sexual behaviors is not uncommon in the Animal Kingdon. But this is not the sole method used in nature to retard over-population. As populations grow over-pollution occurs, living space shrinks, starvation, conflict, and cannibalism can occur. Evolution does bear this out.

We, as a species, have been able to slow down and temporarily prevent some of the normal processes through the use of our technologies. However, that will not last forever as long as we continue to allow our population to grow. The earth is already suffering depletions, whole species have disappeared from our oceans and life-less zones are increasing in it. I could go on, but that is off the point.

I am not saying my theory is correct, but it is based upon some valid research and seems to be more rational than just your naked "opinion" and anecdotal examples. I've NEVER met a homosexual who said it was a choice, EVER in my 56 years. I also met and known quite a few. But that doesn't influence my theory because that's merely anecdotal too and I don't factor it in.

Ciamango · Jun 30, 2013

Lakryte said:
If you like gay sex, you are not necessarily gay. Having gay sex does not mean you are gay. Period.

If in the next few posts you don't offer any actual evidence of your baseless opinions, I will just end this conversation and accept your failure to provide evidence as resignation.

I agree with your first 2 sentences in the quote. You have asserted that like and attracted to are different. So that means one could like gay sex but not be attracted to men. Is that correct?

CriticalThought · Jun 30, 2013

DaveFagan said:
post number 178

That isn't even your post.

CriticalThought · Jun 30, 2013

DaveFagan said:
I disagree. If it's genetic, it is not a matter of choice. As child molesters are frequently people who were molested as children and simultaneously with the programming of their personal computer, the human brain, it appears to mean that any activity, especially a homosexual molestation would have the same cause/effect relationship. That thought has been driven away by the political correctness of stating that homosexuality is not a psychological abnormality. Ergo, you're not supposed to say it or think it. I do both because it seems to me to be one of the answers.

Please provide the evidence, not the anecdotal evidence, but the actual evidence you have to support your view that homosexuality is the result of child molestation.

Since you are sharing your credentials, I will share mine. I have a Masters Degree in Social Work, and while I was specializing in Clinical Social Work, I emphasized Child Welfare. I would absolutely love to see the evidence you have to back up your claims. Because, to be perfectly frank, I think you are full of crap.

AliHajiSheik · Jun 30, 2013

Lakryte said:
I don't know a single gay person who says they chose their attractions. I don't see a shred of evidence to support it either. Just assertions.

I thought you were still debating Merriam-Webster on the definition of homosexuality.

Not really interested in your gay friends. I accept that they believe their homosexuality is innate and wish them well. My assertion remains unchanged that for at least some people it has been a choice even if it is a small minority. You have no evidence that this isn't true either.

CriticalThought · Jun 30, 2013

AliHajiSheik said:
I thought you were still debating Merriam-Webster on the definition of homosexuality.

Not really interested in your gay friends. I accept that they believe their homosexuality is innate and wish them well. My assertion remains unchanged that for at least some people it has been a choice even if it is a small minority. You have no evidence that this isn't true either.

You only need to point to the prison system to prove that is the case. There are plenty of men in prison who are not gay but who engage in a lot of gay sex.

DaveFagan · Jun 30, 2013

Captain Adverse said:
Okay. hmmm... what do you think about this information? (In no particular order but none later than 2008)

Sexual Orientation: In The Brain - CBS News

Not much here. My early sex encounters were with smokers and I find a sexual stimulation still in women smokers. That surprised me. It's the smell related back to pleasure sensing regions of the brain from history. Sex with black women smells different and I like it.

Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function

Everything in this article is new to me. Very interesting. How would you do this testing on newborns?

Brain Study Shows Differences Between Gays, Straights - Washington Post

"Is there such a thing as a "gay brain"? And, if so, are some people born with brains that make them more likely to be homosexual? Or do the brains of gay people develop differently in response to experiences?" "Moreover, the new work involved adults, meaning there is no way to know with certainty when the structures and connections formed and why."

The same questions unanswered in the preceding study.

BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'

Seemed to be a news article on link number two. Nothing new.

Gay Myths: 2 Bits Of Misinformation Debunked : Healthy Living : Medical Daily

"Abstract

There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005-2006 survey of all adult twins (20-47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18-.19 for genetic factors, .16-.17 for shared environmental, and 64-.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior."
This was the twin study referenced. I don't think the article agrees with the Twin Study. I used the Minnesota Twin Registry.

Neuroscience and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As always, WIKI is thorough and seems to include all the above info.

From my paper Works Cited

Alarcon, Maricela, DeFnries, J. C, and Light, Jacquelyn Gillis. "A Twin Study of

Mathematics Disability Journal ofLearning Disabilities. Nov/Dec 1997. 617-23.

Cameron, Paul, and Cameron, Kirk. "Did the APA Misrepresent the Scientific Literature

to Courts in Support of Homosexual Customers Journal of Psychology- May

1997. 313-32.

Cameron, Paul, and Cameron, Kirk. "Homosexual Parents". Adolescence. Winter 1996.

757-76.

Colt, George Howe. "Were You Born That Way?". Life. April 1998. 38-42.

Hershberger, Scott L. "A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female Sexual Orientation".

The Journal of Sex Research. 1997. 212-22.

Jones, Stanton L. "The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene". Christianity Today. Oct. 1999.

53.

Shapiro, Joseph P. "Kids With Gay Parents". U.S. News & World Report. Sept. 1996. 75-

6.

Simonen, Riitta L, Videman, Tapio, and Battie, Michele C. "The Effect of Lifelong

Exercise On Psychomotor Reaction Time: a Study of 38 Pair of Male

Monozygotic Twins. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Sept. 1998.

1445-50.

Sloan, Irving J. "Homosexual Conduct and the Law". Ed. Irving J. Sloan. Oceana

Publications. London/Rome/New York. 1987.

Viegas, Jennifer. "Nature, Not Nurture". ABCNE WS. com. April 14, 2000.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/DailyNews/twinhumorOO0414.html.

Wilson, Emma. "Textuality and (homo)Sexuality in Tournier's Les Meteores". Romanic

Review. Jan. 1995. 115-27.

CriticalThought · Jun 30, 2013

DaveFagan said:
As always, WIKI is thorough and seems to include all the above info.

From my paper Works Cited

Alarcon, Maricela, DeFnries, J. C, and Light, Jacquelyn Gillis. "A Twin Study of

Mathematics Disability Journal ofLearning Disabilities. Nov/Dec 1997. 617-23.

Cameron, Paul, and Cameron, Kirk. "Did the APA Misrepresent the Scientific Literature

to Courts in Support of Homosexual Customers Journal of Psychology- May

1997. 313-32.

Cameron, Paul, and Cameron, Kirk. "Homosexual Parents". Adolescence. Winter 1996.

757-76.

Colt, George Howe. "Were You Born That Way?". Life. April 1998. 38-42.

Hershberger, Scott L. "A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female Sexual Orientation".

The Journal of Sex Research. 1997. 212-22.

Jones, Stanton L. "The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene". Christianity Today. Oct. 1999.

53.

Shapiro, Joseph P. "Kids With Gay Parents". U.S. News & World Report. Sept. 1996. 75-

6.

Simonen, Riitta L, Videman, Tapio, and Battie, Michele C. "The Effect of Lifelong

Exercise On Psychomotor Reaction Time: a Study of 38 Pair of Male

Monozygotic Twins. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Sept. 1998.

1445-50.

Sloan, Irving J. "Homosexual Conduct and the Law". Ed. Irving J. Sloan. Oceana

Publications. London/Rome/New York. 1987.

Viegas, Jennifer. "Nature, Not Nurture". ABCNE WS. com. April 14, 2000.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/DailyNews/twinhumorOO0414.html.

Wilson, Emma. "Textuality and (homo)Sexuality in Tournier's Les Meteores". Romanic

Review. Jan. 1995. 115-27.

YOU CITED PAUL CAMERON! THAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT! PAUL CAMERON!

The American Psychological Association (APA) launched an investigation into Cameron after receiving complaints about his work from members.[3][4] The APA President Max Seigel sent Cameron a letter on December 2, 1983 stating that the Board of Directors had decided to drop him from membership for failure to cooperate with their investigation.[22] FRI has contended that Cameron had already resigned from the organization in November 1982, citing correspondence from before his formal expulsion.[23] In a letter published in the March 1983 edition of the APA Monitor, Cameron stated that his reasons for leaving included his opinion that the organization was becoming more of a "liberal PAC" than a professional society.[24] The APA, however, does not allow the resignation of a member who is the subject of an ethics investigation.[25] An APA spokesperson told The Boston Globe in 2005, "We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak."[4]

In 1984 the Nebraska Psychological Association issued a statement disassociating itself "from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron".[4] In 1986 the American Sociological Association passed a resolution stating, “The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.”[26] This was based on a report from the ASA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised Cameron's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."[27] In 1996, the Board of Directors of the Canadian Psychological Association approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[28]

Paul Cameron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, the moment you posted a works cited that included his work you completely destroyed your own credibility.

finebead · Jun 30, 2013

I had a few acquaintances at work who were openly gay. One was having lunch with a co-worker that I frequently had lunch with, and the 3 of us had lunch. The gay person said he had no choice in the matter, and only a fool would choose to be gay and subject himself to the ridicule and judgement of society, and that made sense to me. He said he knew he was different as a child. He said within 15 minutes he knew if a man was gay.

I voted "no", not a choice.

DaveFagan · Jun 30, 2013

CriticalThought said:
Please provide the evidence, not the anecdotal evidence, but the actual evidence you have to support your view that homosexuality is the result of child molestation.

Since you are sharing your credentials, I will share mine. I have a Masters Degree in Social Work, and while I was specializing in Clinical Social Work, I emphasized Child Welfare. I would absolutely love to see the evidence you have to back up your claims. Because, to be perfectly frank, I think you are full of crap.

The onus would be upon you to provide the links to the counter argument. Be my guest.

Lakryte · Jun 30, 2013

USNavySquid said:
I agree with your first 2 sentences in the quote. You have asserted that like and attracted to are different. So that means one could like gay sex but not be attracted to men. Is that correct?

Correct. Now please offer studies that support the idea that homosexuality is a choice. I have plenty more examples for you in the post below this one.

Lakryte · Jun 30, 2013

AliHajiSheik said:
I thought you were still debating Merriam-Webster on the definition of homosexuality.

Not really interested in your gay friends. I accept that they believe their homosexuality is innate and wish them well. My assertion remains unchanged that for at least some people it has been a choice even if it is a small minority. You have no evidence that this isn't true either.

Nope. It was agreed that equivocation was going on when giving that definition, so the debate ended.

The evidence is that gay conversion therapy has been exposed as fraudulent, straight camps as failures, and I have never heard a single gay person say it was a choice. Is it conclusive? No. But I don't see a single reason to believe homosexuality is a choice for anyone. Not a single person who has asserted that has given any evidence to support that claim.

And then there is what most scientists seem to believe:
"40 years of study indicates homosexuality is not a personal choice."
"There is ongoing research to determine intrinsic human physiology as causation because modern science is leaning toward prenatal chemistry, genetic and hormonal factors even dominant primitivism as the underlying ‘X” factor for LBG. The old argument of nature vs. nurture is taking a backseat and current thinking is the choice of sexuality is innate to human nature as eye color. What is known is most people experience little or no choice in sexual orientation."

A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

Some more information:
Homosexuality is Not a Choice | Truth Wins Out

So yes, I have plenty of evidence. Your turn. Or is your ignorance the only evidence we need?

chromium · Jun 30, 2013

USNavySquid said:
Yikes. This has turned nasty.

The point that conversion therapy failed is a weak point. They could have failed for reasons that have nothing to do with the changeable-ness or unchangeable-ness of orientation. We are Both repeating the same arguments. We are both clinging.

What other examples besides the conversion camps did you give?

I think the point is that people go to great lengths to change their sexuality. Given the very low/zero success rate, whether it's technically a choice or not is kind of irrelevant, because fighting it only does harm in the end. In this sense, it is different from switching to coffee or getting off drugs, which happen all the time.

Lethargic Aptitude · Jun 30, 2013

Captain Adverse said:
It appears to me that you chose not to read the posts, or cherry picked through whatever you did read. You would have gotten answers to some of your comments before making them here.

In any case population control through sexual behaviors is not uncommon in the Animal Kingdon. But this is not the sole method used in nature to retard over-population. As populations grow over-pollution occurs, living space shrinks, starvation, conflict, and cannibalism can occur. Evolution does bear this out.

We, as a species, have been able to slow down and temporarily prevent some of the normal processes through the use of our technologies. However, that will not last forever as long as we continue to allow our population to grow. The earth is already suffering depletions, whole species have disappeared from our oceans and life-less zones are increasing in it. I could go on, but that is off the point.

I am not saying my theory is correct, but it is based upon some valid research and seems to be more rational than just your naked "opinion" and anecdotal examples. I've NEVER met a homosexual who said it was a choice, EVER in my 56 years. I also met and known quite a few. But that doesn't influence my theory because that's merely anecdotal too and I don't factor it in.

I admit that I did not go back and read your posts.

Call my assertions anecdotal or whatever but theorizing that behavior that promotes no sexual reproduction as a evolutionary weapon against over population of a species is a hard sell.

In nature homosexuality isnt as what we think of being gay. The many examples of homosexual animals are what is called non-exclusive homosexuality. That means that they still mate with the opposite sex but raise the offspring is a same sex relationship. Breeding then still occurs. And such things are not uncommon for humans as well. SO really there isnt a measurable impact of there existing homosexuals in nature attributed to slowing the reproduction rate of a species.

Sig · Jun 30, 2013

Obviously, there is an underlying biochemistry involved in sexual orientation. Perhaps not so obvious, this underlying biochemistry is not an either/or manifestation in regards to a fixed sexual orientation. Rather, it appears that sexual orientation lies along a psychobiological continuum which floats upon an underlying biochemistry. Thus, some homosexuals are more homosexually oriented than others, just as some heterosexuals are more heterosexually oriented than others. This explains the phenomenon of bisexuality, as well as the much less than 100% correlation of sexual orientation in identical twins.

To make a long story short, sexual orientation can be a matter of choice for some people but not for others. It all depends upon a number of biochemical, psychobiological, and psychosocial variables.

RabidAlpaca · Jul 1, 2013

FreedomFromAll said:
lol What? I can think of dozens of non violent behaviors that are outlawed at this moment.

You said here that homosexuals do not have a choice, that they are homosexual and thats that. You also are asserting that heterosexuals are stuck being heterosexuals and have no choice in the matter. And now you are saying that it doesnt have to be in every case? So which is it then, gays and straights cant flip sides or some can?

Either way I believe that I made my point. That at least in some cases sexuality is a choice.

1) I said there's no reason to outlaw non-violent behavior, not that people like you don't want to.

2) Not really much of a point, most of them can't make themselves turn straight any more than we can make ourselves turn gay.

Lethargic Aptitude · Jul 1, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
1) I said there's no reason to outlaw non-violent behavior, not that people like you don't want to.

I think that you are jumping to grand conclusions that I never even hinted at making. I would elaborate but im not even sure what people that you think that I belong too.

2) Not really much of a point, most of them can't make themselves turn straight any more than we can make ourselves turn gay.

I thought I made it clear that I was making the point that not 100% of homosexuals consider themselves born that way. I have no idea though what percentage do. Though either sides opinions could be considered in themselves subjective.

ANd as far as making ourselves turn gay, that sounds a bit over simplified to say the least. BTW no one is born a homosexual and no one is born heterosexual, sexuality actually shows up latter in life not as a infant. When a person is homosexual it can actually mean many different things depending on the individual. Some people want to be the opposite sex than they were born. Some want to have sex with the same sex. I have known guys that literally were just as masculine as any guy can be the only thing that made them gay was that they have gay sex. Yes I am quite aware that there are many gays that will always be gay and I never said anything different.

My guess here is that you are assuming that I am making some claim that I am not. Perhaps you should reread what I have written and take note that I did not say anything like what your assumptions seem to dictate.

RabidAlpaca · Jul 1, 2013

FreedomFromAll said:
I think that you are jumping to grand conclusions that I never even hinted at making. I would elaborate but im not even sure what people that you think that I belong too.

I thought I made it clear that I was making the point that not 100% of homosexuals consider themselves born that way. I have no idea though what percentage do. Though either sides opinions could be considered in themselves subjective.

ANd as far as making ourselves turn gay, that sounds a bit over simplified to say the least. BTW no one is born a homosexual and no one is born heterosexual, sexuality actually shows up latter in life not as a infant. When a person is homosexual it can actually mean many different things depending on the individual. Some people want to be the opposite sex than they were born. Some want to have sex with the same sex. I have known guys that literally were just as masculine as any guy can be the only thing that made them gay was that they have gay sex. Yes I am quite aware that there are many gays that will always be gay and I never said anything different.

My guess here is that you are assuming that I am making some claim that I am not. Perhaps you should reread what I have written and take note that I did not say anything like what your assumptions seem to dictate.

Then I guess you just had zero point to make and were just nitpicking about unimportant facts. Whether they were born that way, or became that way, the end result is the same, nothing suggests they "decided" to be gay one day.

AliHajiSheik · Jul 1, 2013

Lakryte said:
Nope. It was agreed that equivocation was going on when giving that definition, so the debate ended.

The evidence is that gay conversion therapy has been exposed as fraudulent, straight camps as failures, and I have never heard a single gay person say it was a choice. Is it conclusive? No. But I don't see a single reason to believe homosexuality is a choice for anyone. Not a single person who has asserted that has given any evidence to support that claim.

And then there is what most scientists seem to believe:
"40 years of study indicates homosexuality is not a personal choice."
"There is ongoing research to determine intrinsic human physiology as causation because modern science is leaning toward prenatal chemistry, genetic and hormonal factors even dominant primitivism as the underlying ‘X” factor for LBG. The old argument of nature vs. nurture is taking a backseat and current thinking is the choice of sexuality is innate to human nature as eye color. What is known is most people experience little or no choice in sexual orientation."

A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

Some more information:
Homosexuality is Not a Choice | Truth Wins Out

So yes, I have plenty of evidence. Your turn. Or is your ignorance the only evidence we need?

I just checked, and Merriam-Webster haven't change their definition of homosexuality:

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1: the quality or state of being homosexual
2: erotic activity with another of the same sex

So clearly the debate you and they are having hasn't been settled yet--at least in your mind.

As for your evidence, it may be indicative in some people that supports that being gay is innate. I never said that for some people it wasn't. But since this is science, I like to see the word "PROVEN" for something to be certain. If they have all these tests, have they been able to identify homosexuals among a group of people who have not identified themselves as homosexual? I have found articles that indicate that there are a group of gays that don't want to admit the possibility that there are some for which there is a choice because they don't want to give ammunition to the other side. I have no such agenda. Bringing up gay conversion is irrelevant since that is typically someone other than the person pursing a change.

One who has caught a lot of such flack is the actress Cynthia Nixon who says that after 20 years in a relationship with a man and two children, that recently she made the choice to be gay. Some bash her for not really being gay but bisexual instead. Perhaps you feel the same way, but if she says that she chose to be gay, it is none of my business, let her be gay. I don't need to study the issue because I don't have an agenda either way.

Again, my only assertion is that there are a percentage of people who are innately gay and there is a percentage of people who choose to be gay and that the percentage of each is not 100%. You assert that the percentages are 100% and 0% respectively. No rounding, just the absolute percentage. Until you have some evidence that absolutely proves 100%, then I think my position is the more reasonable between the two of us.

What is your agenda?

davidtaylorjr · Jul 1, 2013

AGENT J said:
you are right "i" didnt and didnt claim i did lol there you go making stuff up again, can you ever stop?

YOU proved it, everything you posted proved the fact that homosexuality itslef is factually not a sin

let me know when this fact changes and you are ready to admit you are wrong

or simply supply us all with proof it is a sin, we will be waiting

I have given more than enough proof, you just decide to twist things to your way of thinking.

AGENT J · Jul 1, 2013

davidtaylorjr said:
I have given more than enough proof, you just decide to twist things to your way of thinking.

no you have given ZERO and that fact will not change, everything you posted proved that homosexuality itself is not a sin.
My opinion has no play here im gouing by the facts, nice try but you are still wrong and this thread proves it

if you disagree by all means pleas please post the proof for us again

davidtaylorjr · Jul 1, 2013

AGENT J said:
no you have given ZERO and that fact will not change, everything you posted proved that homosexuality itself is not a sin.
My opinion has no play here im gouing by the facts, nice try but you are still wrong and this thread proves it

if you disagree by all means pleas please post the proof for us again

That's fine if you want to deny the truth. Nothing more to discuss with you.

Papa bull · Jul 1, 2013

Sherman123 said:
But pretending that we haven't ruled out 'choice' as a general cause is ridiculous.

Since we know it CAN be a choice, Pretending that we HAVE ruled it out is the truly ridiculous position. There are theories out the ass stemming from all the scratching around in the dark, groping for "the cause" since we want so badly to say that it really can't be a choice. The truly logical position is that we don't know. We just know that even if it turns out there is some condition that causes this that eliminates the element of choice for many, the element of choice is still a fact of life for at least some... and even so, until there is some hard evidence, it's not even a theory, but a hypothesis.

AGENT J · Jul 1, 2013

davidtaylorjr said:
That's fine if you want to deny the truth. Nothing more to discuss with you.

thats what i thought!
we knew you wouldnt post your "proof" because there isnt any. Dont know why you just insist on posting dishonesty, it just further exposes you.

Let us know when you are ready to man up and admit you were factually wrong or ready to post proof.

Papa bull · Jul 1, 2013

Captain Adverse said:
In any case population control through sexual behaviors is not uncommon in the Animal Kingdon. But this is not the sole method used in nature to retard over-population. As populations grow over-pollution occurs, living space shrinks, starvation, conflict, and cannibalism can occur. Evolution does bear this out.

Since homosexuals also want to argue that homsexuality has always been around and even more popular in the days of Rome and Greece when it was obviously a CHOICE and when populations were LOW and when there was no threat whatsoever of overpopulation, I'd say the "biological population control mechanism" theory has more holes in it than a screen window.

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Yes

No

Maybe/Don't Know

Classical Liberal Sage

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Political Parties = Corruption

Engineer

Political Parties = Corruption

Engineer

Well-known member

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Well-known member

"If you ain't first, you're last"